CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research

How to use this appraisal tool: Three broad issues need to be considered when appraising a
qualitative study:

Are the results of the study valid? (Section A)

What are the results? (Section B)
Will the results help locally? (Section C)

The 10 questions on the following pages are designed to help you think about these issues
systematically. The first two questions are screening questions and can be answered quickly.
If the answer to both is “yes”, it is worth proceeding with the remaining questions. There is
some degree of overlap between the questions, you are asked to record a “yes”, “no” or
“can’t tell” to most of the questions. A number of italicised prompts are given after each
question. These are designed to remind you why the question is important. Record your
reasons for your answers in the spaces provided.

About: These checklists were designed to be used as educational pedagogic tools, as part of a
workshop setting, therefore we do not suggest a scoring system. The core CASP checklists
(randomised controlled trial & systematic review) were based on JAMA 'Users’ guides to the
medical literature 1994 (adapted from Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, and Cook DJ), and piloted with
health care practitioners.
For each new checklist, a group of experts were assembled to develop and pilot the checklist
and the workshop format with which it would be used. Over the years overall adjustments
have been made to the format, but a recent survey of checklist users reiterated that the basic
format continues to be useful and appropriate.
Referencing: we recommend using the Harvard style citation, i.e.: Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (2018). CASP (insert name of checklist i.e. Qualitative) Checklist. [online] Available
at: URL. Accessed: Date Accessed.

©CASP this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial-
Share A like. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/3.0/ www.casp-uk.net

Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) part of Oxford Centre for Triple Value Healthcare Ltd www.casp-uk.net
 Experiences of Family Caregivers of People with Dementia
during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Paper for appraisal and reference: ...............................................................................................................
(Western Journal of Nursing Research 2022, Vol. 44(3) 269–278)
Section A: Are the results valid?

✓
1. Was there a clear Yes HINT: Consider
statement of the aims of • what was the goal of the research
the research? Can’t Tell • why it was thought important
• its relevance
No

Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengeksplorasi pengalaman caregiver keluarga terkait gejala
perilaku dan psikologis yang dialami oleh keluarga dengan demensia, pengelolaan gejala-
gejala tersebut, dan perubahan pengalaman mereka selama pandemic covid-19.

✓
2. Is a qualitative Yes HINT: Consider
methodology • If the research seeks to interpret or
appropriate? Can’t Tell illuminate the actions and/or subjective
experiences of research participants
No
• Is qualitative research the right
methodology for addressing the
research goal

Comments:
Penggunaan metode penelitian kualitatif sangat tepat digunakan karena tujuan penelitian
untuk para pengasuh menggambarkan banyak tantangan dalam memberikan perawatan
sebelum dan selama pandemi.

Is it worth continuing?

✓
3. Was the research Yes HINT: Consider
design appropriate to • if the researcher has justified the
address the aims of the Can’t Tell research design (e.g. have they
research? discussed how they decided which
No method to use)

Comments:
Terdapat penjelasan dalam metode penelitian bahwa mengambil pendekatan kualitatif dan
eksploratif digunakan untuk penelitian ini. Wawancara semiterstruktur virtual virtual
dilakukan dengan pengasuh keluarga dari orang dewasa yang lebih tua dengan ADRD yang
tinggal di komunitas.

2
 ✓
4. Was the recruitment Yes HINT: Consider
strategy appropriate to • If the researcher has explained how the
the aims of the Can’t Tell participants were selected
research? • If they explained why the participants
No they selected were the most
appropriate to provide access to the
type of knowledge sought by the study
• If there are any discussions around
recruitment (e.g. why some people
chose not to take part)

Comments:
Peneliti menjelaskan cara rekruitmen partisipan dengan pengasuh keluarga dipilih secara
purposive sampling dan direkrut melalui organisasi pendukung ADRD di dua negara bagian.
Informasi studi dan brosur dibagikan kepada calon peserta di kelompok dukungan virtual, acara
Pendidikan, melalui bulletin dan situs web organisasi.

✓
5. Was the data collected in Yes HINT: Consider
a way that addressed the • If the setting for the data collection was
research issue? Can’t Tell justified
• If it is clear how data were collected (e.g.
No focus group, semi-structured interview
etc.)
• If the researcher has justified the methods
chosen
• If the researcher has made the methods
explicit (e.g. for interview method, is there
an indication of how interviews are
conducted, or did they use a topic guide)
• If methods were modified during the
study. If so, has the researcher
explained how and why
• If the form of data is clear (e.g. tape
recordings, video material, notes etc.)
• If the researcher has discussed
saturation of data

Comments:
Proses wawancara dilakukan satu kali per peserta menggunakan fungsi perekaman audio zoom
dan kemudian rekaman audio ditranskip kata demi kata.

3
 ✓
6. Has the relationship Yes HINT: Consider
between researcher and • If the researcher critically
participants been examined their own role,
Can’t Tell
adequately considered? potential bias and influence
during (a) formulation of the
No
research questions (b) data
collection, including sample
recruitment and choice of
location
• How the researcher responded to
events during the study and
whether they considered the
implications of any changes in the
research design

Comments:
Tidak terdapat hubungan antara peneliti dan partisipan sebelumnya, hal ini dibuktikan dengan pengasuh
menghubungi peneliti utama secara langsung jika tertarik.

Section B: What are the results?

✓
7. Have ethical issues been Yes HINT: Consider
taken into consideration? • If there are sufficient details of how the
research was explained to participants for
Can’t Tell
the reader to assess whether ethical
standards were maintained
No • If the researcher has discussed issues
raised by the study (e.g. issues around
informed consent or confidentiality or how
they have handled the effects of the study
on the participants during and after the
study)
• If approval has been sought from
the ethics committee

Comments:
Penelitan ini telah ditetapkan untuk dikecualikan dari tinjauan penuh oleh dewan peninjau kelembagaan
universitas peneliti. Sebelum wawancara terjadwal, semua partisipan diberikan formular persetujuan
penelitian dan meninjaunya dengan peneliti utama melalui telepon. Mereka semua menandatangani
formular tersebut secara elektronik menggunakan layanan tanda tangan yang aman dan sesuai dengan
HIPAA.

4
 ✓
8. Was the data analysis Yes HINT: Consider
sufficiently rigorous? • If there is an in-depth description of the
Can’t Tell analysis process
• If thematic analysis is used. If so, is it clear
No how the categories/themes were derived
from the data
• Whether the researcher explains how the
data presented were selected from the
original sample to demonstrate the analysis
process
• If sufficient data are presented to support
the findings
• To what extent contradictory data are
taken into account
• Whether the researcher critically examined
their own role, potential bias and influence
during analysis and selection of data for
presentation

Comments:
Proses Analisa menggunakan wawancara, rekaman audio di transkip kata demi kata.
Traanskip dibuat dengan menggunakan Atlas TI. Satu wawancara melibatkan dua pengasuh
keluarga utama yang berpartisipasi bersama sebagai pasangan, dalam hal ini unit analisinya
adalah transkip secara keseluruhan. Semua transkip di analisis secara induktif dan berulang-
ulang dengan menggunakan analisis isi dan metode komparatif yang konstan.

✓
9. Is there a clear statement Yes HINT: Consider whether
of findings? • If the findings are explicit
Can’t Tell • If there is adequate discussion of the
evidence both for and against the
No researcher’s arguments
• If the researcher has discussed the
credibility of their findings (e.g.
triangulation, respondent validation, more
than one analyst)
• If the findings are discussed in relation to
the original research question

Comments:
Temuan menunjukkan bahwa pengasuh keluarga dan kerabat mereka yang hidup dengan ADRD
mengalami tantangan dalam perawatan di rumah sebelum pandemic covid-19, yang banyak di antaranya
diperparah oleh pandemic tersebut.

5
Section C: Will the results help locally?

10. How valuable is the HINT: Consider

research? • If the researcher discusses the
contribution the study makes to existing
knowledge or understanding (e.g. do they
consider the findings in relation to current
practice or policy, or relevant research-
based literature
• If they identify new areas where research
is necessary
• If the researchers have discussed whether
or how the findings can be transferred to
other populations or considered other
ways the research may be used

Comments:
Terlepas dari keterbatasan penelitian ini, temuan menunjukkan bahwa pengasuh keluarga dan
kerabat mereka yang hidup dengan ADRD mengalami tantangan dalam perawatan di rumah
sebelum pandemic covid-19, yang banyak di antaranya diperparah oleh pandemic tersebut.
Penelitian tambahan diperlukan untuk lebih memahami pengalaman pengasuh yang lebih luas
dan untuk menjembatani kesenjangan antara peneliti, dokter, penyedia dukungan komunitas,
orang yang hidup dengan ADRD, dan keluarha mereka.